Well that's what you're saying, but in practice when you read between the lines and listen to the overall tone of the rhetoric in question, it does appeared to be filled with anti-intellectual themes which do sound quite similar to Soviet anti-education/intellectual propaganda.

So...what your saying is, "If you would just re-interpret things according to my prejudices and assumptions you would see how wrong you are."

Yeah but probably not at the kind of firm that hires Harvard Law grads.

The value of the Harvard Law degree isn't in the quality of education that the student receives or in the quality of lawyer that the hiring firm or the paying client receives; it's in the prestige of the brand name. This prestige gives the graduate access to a network of peers, prospective employers and clients that opens up as a result of being associated with this exclusive brand. On the other hand, it gives the hiring law firm the prestige associated with being staffed with Harvard grads, and the clients the prestige of being serviced by Harvard grads.

In reality, you could probably get a better education elsewhere / a better lawyer elsewhere and for much cheaper but people illogically / emotionally ascribe value to the brand.

"No. That depends on if you're hungry today and still want to be hungry tomorrow. When it comes to the ability to feed your belly, actual trumps potential."

Yeah but we're not talking about people living on the line of subsistence here. If the question is what's the point of getting a Harvard Law degree for 100K when I can apprentice for a few years and challenge the exam for peanuts there's an implied assumption that the person who actually has that choice is either privileged enough to be able to afford to pay 100K or privileged enough to be granted 100k in credit / financing / debt. The point being that the guy who actually has that choice is almost certainly not going hungry, and the guy who's going hungry almost certainly doesn't have that choice.

If only there were a group that was dedicated to providing good, rational, well-explained information to the masses. Sure, it might take people several minutes per topic to absorb the background and context of an event - but it would be worth it to have a well informed public.

Instead we have today's mass media. And individuals are on their own to try an sift through all the crap in order to apply "analytics" - because, of course, the schools have trained everybody in those disciples. Along with basic life skills like cooking, home repair, and personal finance.

"Yes. They are history (if they are old) and celebrations.
I find it horrific that we're now getting into making rationales for destroying art.
Like this: memorials to the Pharaohs, self-aggrandizing hierarchs who used massive amounts of…"

"Political violence isn't new to the US or the modern world. Italy had the years of lead - we're nowhere near that. The UK has a strong Antifa counter culture - they're not losing anything for it. The only reason the US goes…"